I read some of Bertrand Russell's philosophical texts as well. I disagreed with mostly everything he had to say about religion, but I did agree with most of his other social, economic, and political viewpoints.

I, in contrast, agree with most of what Russell says about religion. I don't know why people cling to this so desperately. Well, I *do* know the psychological pull. But Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy had a psychological pull, too.--GrannyGeek

I tend to follow Pratchett on this, as in the Hogfather... these things are anthropormophic personifications of what happens.

Our gods are our invention, a way of rationalising the universe, no more than that.... they do have an appeal I grant you, but no more than does the tooth fairy or Sion Corn/Father Christmas.

Sweetest of all liesone of everlasting life.No one wants to diebut we do, so we hide.What you fail to realizeis there's no need to fear.You live on in the hearts and mindsof those who hold you dear, who are right here.

but, well, does it bring you closer to the topic of the theme?There are more girls in Heaven or Earth then meant in your philosophy.

I tend to follow Pratchett on this, as in the Hogfather... these things are anthropormophic personifications of what happens.

Our gods are our invention, a way of rationalising the universe, no more than that.... they do have an appeal I grant you, but no more than does the tooth fairy or Sion Corn/Father Christmas.

This is a very simple way to see the problem. Gods are personifications in some cultures. I dont know almost anything about Santa or those things you mention, but the kids loves them.

If we choose our language very carefully, we can separate (as the chemist do) a problem from experimental science, from anthropology and psicology, and from the other sciences. There is a methaphysyc problem. A lot of religions are based on this problem. They talk about it with their special language. With their own logic. If you read Heidegger, or Nietzche, or Kant, or Derrida ( to put someone from these days) or may be Russell himself, you will find this problem, the same problem with different logic.The Russell a priori is wrong, because religion is a speech about a genuine problem. Is a speech -like all the others- with own and particular rules. Just they are not the rules of the science, or the rules of Math (but this problem has a math view, see Alain Badiou, for example, or Pascal, or Leibniz).There is nothing about fantasy or superstition on this. It's an accurated and rational problem (please note accurated and exact are not the same). We can ask: Are the humans free? their have a destiny? What am I really? What means the word "world"? You cant answer this questions empiricly. The psicology and anthropology cant answer them either, but that doesnt mean they are not genuine questions.

PS: This forum is great, we have our own theological discusion now

Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise. --Jumalauta!!

I read some of Bertrand Russell's philosophical texts as well. I disagreed with mostly everything he had to say about religion, but I did agree with most of his other social, economic, and political viewpoints.

I, in contrast, agree with most of what Russell says about religion. I don't know why people cling to this so desperately. Well, I *do* know the psychological pull. But Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy had a psychological pull, too.--GrannyGeek

I tend to follow Pratchett on this, as in the Hogfather... these things are anthropormophic personifications of what happens.

Our gods are our invention, a way of rationalising the universe, no more than that.... they do have an appeal I grant you, but no more than does the tooth fairy or Sion Corn/Father Christmas.

rbistolfi said that some questions are not empirical, so it is more than some abstraction for nature.

For instance, one might say that the 'Destroyer' aspect of many religions is a way of representing the laws of thermodynamics, which cause physical processes to break down and terminate.

But here is where philosophy and religion step in, once the what and how are known: why do these constraints exist?

When you see bacteria in a petri dish and consider what would happen if growth could be infinite, then you appreciate them. Because conflicts center on finite resources, one could say that the First Law of Thermodynamics causes wars. On the same token, it also forces them to end. The same can be said for all things that ultimately break down and perish, even life itself.

One of the most important aspects of the supernatural, to me, is the Destroyer aspect. For me, it explains why there is dissolution and death through a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument; if they didn't exist, life really would be meaningless, because with infinite resources to sustain infinite life there'd be no cause for evolution or any other meaningful change to happen. And we think the laws of physics are cruel now! In truth, I have learned to revere the destructive power of nature.

Science is very useful in understanding the superficial aspects of nature, but the subtext is out of its domain.

The core of religion seems to be to give meaning to life, there is no meaning, life just is. If we accept this then we lose a lot of heart ache in trying to make sense of harsh things and can get on with improving our lives and those of those round us. Part of this is our vanity in trying to give us a special place in the universe, where we are part of a greater purpose, again this is just vanity.

The core of religion seems to be to give meaning to life, there is no meaning, life just is. If we accept this then we lose a lot of heart ache in trying to make sense of harsh things and can get on with improving our lives and those of those round us. Part of this is our vanity in trying to give us a special place in the universe, where we are part of a greater purpose, again this is just vanity.

WADR, your statement assumes two things falsely

Religion is inherently contrary to humanism (e.g., Galatian doctrine)

Religion forces us to put ourselves at the center of the Universe

Neither of them are strictly true. That's why, e.g., Hindus do not really ascribe a human shape to God (in essence). Isaac Newton didn't either. It would be vain to do so, I agree, but it's not strictly necessary.

That is true just in a few cases. You can say that a Paradise idea, a live after death, give meaning to life. I say that can give meaning to death, but this life still a mystery. The interesting religions gives you questions, not answers.

Quote

If we accept this then we lose a lot of heart ache in trying to make sense of harsh things and can get on with improving our lives and those of those round us.

Again. this is true just in a few cases. You have a wrong abstract idea about religion, based just in a few cases of particulars forms of Christianism. Take a look to old europeans* religions and you will understand what I am trying to say.

Quote

Part of this is our vanity in trying to give us a special place in the universe, where we are part of a greater purpose, again this is just vanity.

I cant see vanity in people who believe in an infinite god, and think about themself like a infinitesimal no-sense material thing in the universe. I am not one of them, may be I have some vanity, because I think some gods want to be humans sometimes. Like Zeus when he is in love with some mortal, or Jehova Himself, when deny His Own Nature in Jesus. Thr is a lot of points of view over the same thing. As hanu said, your ideas are not necessary about religion in general, but about some particular cases.

Very good point hanu. Even we can say atheism is not necessary against religion, take a look to the mystic doctrine, like Maister Eckhart. Or the oriental religions, looks like their main proposition is "god, me and the universe are nothing". Sorry, but I cant see vanity in that, but the opposite.

* Edited to keep friendship between nice people and because I have not a warrior ancestor, and is always convenient to not offend that kind of people.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 09:34:44 am by rbistolfi »

Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise. --Jumalauta!!

Some of the techniques are just ridiculous, but there are a TON of good advice and techniques there. Once you get past the boot camp, you'll never have problem with the ladies, specially the "not enough ladies around" problem.

If we accept this then we lose a lot of heart ache in trying to make sense of harsh things and can get on with improving our lives and those of those round us.

Again. this is true just in a few cases. You have a wrong abstract idea about religion, based just in a few cases of particulars forms of [Christianity]. Take a look at the Valhalla idea and you will understand what I am trying to say.

Mentioning the battle-cult of the Norsemen to a Welsh user was probably a mistake...

Wow, hanumizzle, I kind of got caught up in some things and totally lost track of this thread. A buddy of mine in Sweden is going to get back to me about the pen-pal thing, if you're still interested.

Yes, thank you.

What's one more Germanic language anyway? The syntax is closer to Englisc and there's only two kinds of nouns, many of which can be guessed when given with the inflected definite article. My birthday is coming up so I'll be able to buy some books I guess.

If we accept this then we lose a lot of heart ache in trying to make sense of harsh things and can get on with improving our lives and those of those round us.

Again. this is true just in a few cases. You have a wrong abstract idea about religion, based just in a few cases of particulars forms of [Christianity]. Take a look at the Valhalla idea and you will understand what I am trying to say.

Mentioning the battle-cult of the Norsemen to a Welsh user was probably a mistake...

If we accept this then we lose a lot of heart ache in trying to make sense of harsh things and can get on with improving our lives and those of those round us.

Again. this is true just in a few cases. You have a wrong abstract idea about religion, based just in a few cases of particulars forms of [Christianity]. Take a look at the Valhalla idea and you will understand what I am trying to say.

Mentioning the battle-cult of the Norsemen to a Welsh user was probably a mistake...

LOL :-)

Taken, was my mistake. I meet some Welsh users at Chubut, the south of Argentina (Yr Ariannin ). My wife is borned there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_settlement_in_ArgentinaI didnt note your flag. I put that example just because I used to see a girl from norway, and is a familiar theme for me (I was trying to impress her talking about her culture, didnt work).BTW I really can understand your idea about religion. And even Russells idea. Many mystakes happened in the name of religion. I gess I just want to make a point about a philosophical aproach to the religion topic, and some speechs abd traditions have a value, a great value.Lyn, my apollogies again, please note the edit over the original post.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 09:45:19 am by rbistolfi »

Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise. --Jumalauta!!

I like that, but I dont think, like the author, "they signify nothing other than themselves". This is essencial on our disscusion. I think words, even when they are a pray, points, they are theleological.

Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise. --Jumalauta!!